|
|
On July 24 2012 06:42 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 05:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 05:38 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:26 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Human considerations should definitely factor into the equation, but companies can't be expected to simply ignore the bottom line. What should go on the bottom line is the well-being and human flourishing of the people who are, de facto if not in nomine, feudal vassals to that company. This is the problem with limited liability and executive responsibility to shareholders. Good companies and good managers understand that the well-being and happiness of their workers ultimately affects their bottom line. If you treat your employees like garbage, not only will you have trouble holding onto your employees long term, but word gets around that you treat your employees like garbage, which makes hiring quality replacement workers more difficult. This is particularly true in more specialized industries where the communities are relatively small. Yeah, it works for people who are already privilegednot so much for those whose jobs are under constant siege by the reserve army of the unemployed I really, really hate that word. It completely glosses over all of the hard work, pain, and turmoil that people put into their careers. Instead, it has the connotation that people get to where they are through sheer serendipity. Yes, better instead of gloss over the even greater amount of hard work, pain, and turmoil of those who are not afforded the opportunity to succeed. It's like Christ said: "Accursed are the poor, and never shall they enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as their poverty is their damnation in the eyes of the Lord." Yeah, 'cuz so many poor are not afforded opportunities in America. Well... yeah...
There is zero income mobility in your world, is that it?
aside from a few "man who" arguments, what is there? edit: often "opportunities" for income mobility are immoral or contrary to class interests in aggregate... Try looking up studies on income mobility. Do the poor have it harder? Sure, but this isn't the grinding permanent poverty of the 3rd world. Here's a nice graphic from the NY Times. Here's a more up to date study.. I have no idea what you are talking about with your edit... Erm. America and UK lags behind other first world countries (including Canada and Norway) in terms of social mobility. It's supposed to be the American Dream, not the Canadian Dream. Comparing to third world countries is just setting the bar incredibly low. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all
I was responding to someone (probably a marxist) who was suggesting that there is no mobility in America by providing him with data on mobility in America. I'm not trying to set the bar down to 3rd world levels.
I don't contend that mobility in America could be better, though comparing country to country can be a bit squishy.
|
On July 24 2012 08:09 coverpunch wrote:
In regards to social mobility, you have to put it a little bit into historical context. The gap between mature and emerging countries has been shrinking dramatically over the last 20 years and I think it's making some emerging markets look better than they are and mature markets look worse than they are.
For instance, Finland's education system is held up as a model today but it's worth pointing out that they had one of the worst systems in the 80s when they reformed their schools. They have a generation that is simply reaping the benefits of an improved education (and Nokia) today, which makes their mobility look very good. But the real test is whether they can maintain their mobility with the next generation that already grows up in a rich country. Probably not. Similarly, you have an entire generation of East Germans who have gotten a boost from re-integration and make the country look much better off than it does. It won't last.
Part of the reason why mobility is so low in the US and UK is because they're already rich, well-educated countries, so the current generation that grows up with so few people knowing real poverty have very little room to move.
That's not to say the US and UK don't have social problems or that the poor have exactly the same opportunities as the rich in this country. Rising inequality is a very serious problem in these countries. I just think you need to put things in more perspective before you declare the US is a feudal state and Canada is an oh-so-wonderfully-equal country.
The bulk of the First World in Western and Northern Europe (and Australia and New Zealand etc) are not "emerging" economies nor were they 20 years ago. The United States is not awful by a general metric, but compared to the rest of the developed world it fares quite poorly on metrics such as social mobility. It's not as though the U.S. already has low income inequality--it has high income inequality punctuated by low income mobility. So basically, the exact opposite of what you wrote. These are by no means insurmountable problems for the U.S.--indeed one could argue for a country that is so indisputably wealthy as the U.S. in absolute terms, they are relatively easy problems to alleviate, "low-hanging fruit" if you will. But the first step to solving any problem is admittting that it exists.
|
On July 24 2012 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 06:42 DoubleReed wrote:On July 24 2012 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 05:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 05:38 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:26 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
What should go on the bottom line is the well-being and human flourishing of the people who are, de facto if not in nomine, feudal vassals to that company. This is the problem with limited liability and executive responsibility to shareholders. Good companies and good managers understand that the well-being and happiness of their workers ultimately affects their bottom line. If you treat your employees like garbage, not only will you have trouble holding onto your employees long term, but word gets around that you treat your employees like garbage, which makes hiring quality replacement workers more difficult. This is particularly true in more specialized industries where the communities are relatively small. Yeah, it works for people who are already privilegednot so much for those whose jobs are under constant siege by the reserve army of the unemployed I really, really hate that word. It completely glosses over all of the hard work, pain, and turmoil that people put into their careers. Instead, it has the connotation that people get to where they are through sheer serendipity. Yes, better instead of gloss over the even greater amount of hard work, pain, and turmoil of those who are not afforded the opportunity to succeed. It's like Christ said: "Accursed are the poor, and never shall they enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as their poverty is their damnation in the eyes of the Lord." Yeah, 'cuz so many poor are not afforded opportunities in America. Well... yeah...
There is zero income mobility in your world, is that it?
aside from a few "man who" arguments, what is there? edit: often "opportunities" for income mobility are immoral or contrary to class interests in aggregate... Try looking up studies on income mobility. Do the poor have it harder? Sure, but this isn't the grinding permanent poverty of the 3rd world. Here's a nice graphic from the NY Times. Here's a more up to date study.. I have no idea what you are talking about with your edit... Erm. America and UK lags behind other first world countries (including Canada and Norway) in terms of social mobility. It's supposed to be the American Dream, not the Canadian Dream. Comparing to third world countries is just setting the bar incredibly low. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all I was responding to someone (probably a marxist) who was suggesting that there is no mobility in America by providing him with data on mobility in America. I'm not trying to set the bar down to 3rd world levels. I don't contend that mobility in America could be better, though comparing country to country can be a bit squishy.
There is not "no mobility" in America, just LESS mobility than in other countries with a stronger social democratic tradition. A common argument made in defense of America's lack of social democracy is that it is offset by higher social mobility; however, this is the precise opposite of the truth.
|
On July 24 2012 09:04 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 06:42 DoubleReed wrote:On July 24 2012 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 05:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 05:38 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:32 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Good companies and good managers understand that the well-being and happiness of their workers ultimately affects their bottom line. If you treat your employees like garbage, not only will you have trouble holding onto your employees long term, but word gets around that you treat your employees like garbage, which makes hiring quality replacement workers more difficult. This is particularly true in more specialized industries where the communities are relatively small. Yeah, it works for people who are already privilegednot so much for those whose jobs are under constant siege by the reserve army of the unemployed I really, really hate that word. It completely glosses over all of the hard work, pain, and turmoil that people put into their careers. Instead, it has the connotation that people get to where they are through sheer serendipity. Yes, better instead of gloss over the even greater amount of hard work, pain, and turmoil of those who are not afforded the opportunity to succeed. It's like Christ said: "Accursed are the poor, and never shall they enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as their poverty is their damnation in the eyes of the Lord." Yeah, 'cuz so many poor are not afforded opportunities in America. Well... yeah...
There is zero income mobility in your world, is that it?
aside from a few "man who" arguments, what is there? edit: often "opportunities" for income mobility are immoral or contrary to class interests in aggregate... Try looking up studies on income mobility. Do the poor have it harder? Sure, but this isn't the grinding permanent poverty of the 3rd world. Here's a nice graphic from the NY Times. Here's a more up to date study.. I have no idea what you are talking about with your edit... Erm. America and UK lags behind other first world countries (including Canada and Norway) in terms of social mobility. It's supposed to be the American Dream, not the Canadian Dream. Comparing to third world countries is just setting the bar incredibly low. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all I was responding to someone (probably a marxist) who was suggesting that there is no mobility in America by providing him with data on mobility in America. I'm not trying to set the bar down to 3rd world levels. I don't contend that mobility in America could be better, though comparing country to country can be a bit squishy. There is not "no mobility" in America, just LESS mobility than in other countries with a stronger social democratic tradition. A common argument made in defense of America's lack of social democracy is that it is offset by higher social mobility; however, this is the precise opposite of the truth.
I'm pretty sure social mobility has been falling in the US while the size and scope of government has been increasing. I'm not sure the correlation between the two is very strong.
|
On July 24 2012 10:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 09:04 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 06:42 DoubleReed wrote:On July 24 2012 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 05:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 05:38 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, it works for people who are already privileged
not so much for those whose jobs are under constant siege by the reserve army of the unemployed I really, really hate that word. It completely glosses over all of the hard work, pain, and turmoil that people put into their careers. Instead, it has the connotation that people get to where they are through sheer serendipity. Yes, better instead of gloss over the even greater amount of hard work, pain, and turmoil of those who are not afforded the opportunity to succeed. It's like Christ said: "Accursed are the poor, and never shall they enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as their poverty is their damnation in the eyes of the Lord." Yeah, 'cuz so many poor are not afforded opportunities in America. Well... yeah...
There is zero income mobility in your world, is that it?
aside from a few "man who" arguments, what is there? edit: often "opportunities" for income mobility are immoral or contrary to class interests in aggregate... Try looking up studies on income mobility. Do the poor have it harder? Sure, but this isn't the grinding permanent poverty of the 3rd world. Here's a nice graphic from the NY Times. Here's a more up to date study.. I have no idea what you are talking about with your edit... Erm. America and UK lags behind other first world countries (including Canada and Norway) in terms of social mobility. It's supposed to be the American Dream, not the Canadian Dream. Comparing to third world countries is just setting the bar incredibly low. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all I was responding to someone (probably a marxist) who was suggesting that there is no mobility in America by providing him with data on mobility in America. I'm not trying to set the bar down to 3rd world levels. I don't contend that mobility in America could be better, though comparing country to country can be a bit squishy. There is not "no mobility" in America, just LESS mobility than in other countries with a stronger social democratic tradition. A common argument made in defense of America's lack of social democracy is that it is offset by higher social mobility; however, this is the precise opposite of the truth. I'm pretty sure social mobility has been falling in the US while the size and scope of government has been increasing. I'm not sure the correlation between the two is very strong.
For the record, the current debt is not simply from expanding the size and scope of government, or improving social welfare. Most of it is a result of the Bush tax cuts and the two wars, and the bank bail out.
Personally I think the idea the social programs can, or is intended to, instanty erase the massive job-loss the US accrued over the past decade is a little naive.
The truth is, the 2 to 3 million jobs the Obama Administration did add over three years is pretty impressive, even if it falls short.
In regards to social mobility, I can only speak from personal experience that Canada's socialized healthcare prevented my family from dropping out of the middle-class, and we're much bigger contributers to the economy than we would be if didn't have it.
|
On July 24 2012 09:03 HunterX11 wrote:
The bulk of the First World in Western and Northern Europe (and Australia and New Zealand etc) are not "emerging" economies nor were they 20 years ago. The United States is not awful by a general metric, but compared to the rest of the developed world it fares quite poorly on metrics such as social mobility. It's not as though the U.S. already has low income inequality--it has high income inequality punctuated by low income mobility. So basically, the exact opposite of what you wrote. These are by no means insurmountable problems for the U.S.--indeed one could argue for a country that is so indisputably wealthy as the U.S. in absolute terms, they are relatively easy problems to alleviate, "low-hanging fruit" if you will. But the first step to solving any problem is admittting that it exists.
Let's go to the facts:
![[image loading]](http://www.oecd.org/vgn/images/portal/cit_731/7/50/44765433G4G%20ch%205.gif)
So first off, Western Europe also has low social mobility compared to the OECD. When you talk about high social mobility, you really only mean the Nordic countries, Canada, and Australia.
There's also a distinction we need to make about "social mobility" as a term. The way social scientists use it is how well parental incomes can predict that of their children. The way people use it when they say America is a land of opportunity is that the US has diversified industries that rely heavily on human capital, i.e. talent, education, creativity, so you can choose to go into many different fields and succeed based on your own merit.
Does it turn out that way? Well, the thing in the US and Western Europe is that education is very sticky. That is, if your parents have a postgraduate education, then you are much more likely in the US or UK to also get a postgraduate education (the same applies if your parents drop out of high school). This predictable inequality in education is a driving factor in income inequality and reduced social mobility. For a variety of reasons, there isn't as strong a relationship in the Nordic countries, Canada, or Australia. The point of my post is that there is a historical context for these reasons, of which social policy is not the main factor.
In short, I don't think there are low-hanging fruit here. IMO the main factors are exports and culture, things that we can change now but it will take a generation (basically, how our kids are raised) to see good results. And most of these changes are things that sound easy but hard to implement and harder to do to your own kids. Such as Barack Obama talking about education reform and mixing children of many different backgrounds rather than separating them by ability/class, then he sends his own children to a prestigious private school in DC with the kids of other powerful and influential people. You can easily see that they'll go to Ivy League schools and get postgraduate degrees like their parents.
Source
|
On July 24 2012 10:14 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 10:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 09:04 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 06:42 DoubleReed wrote:On July 24 2012 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 05:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 05:38 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I really, really hate that word. It completely glosses over all of the hard work, pain, and turmoil that people put into their careers. Instead, it has the connotation that people get to where they are through sheer serendipity. Yes, better instead of gloss over the even greater amount of hard work, pain, and turmoil of those who are not afforded the opportunity to succeed. It's like Christ said: "Accursed are the poor, and never shall they enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as their poverty is their damnation in the eyes of the Lord." Yeah, 'cuz so many poor are not afforded opportunities in America. Well... yeah...
There is zero income mobility in your world, is that it?
aside from a few "man who" arguments, what is there? edit: often "opportunities" for income mobility are immoral or contrary to class interests in aggregate... Try looking up studies on income mobility. Do the poor have it harder? Sure, but this isn't the grinding permanent poverty of the 3rd world. Here's a nice graphic from the NY Times. Here's a more up to date study.. I have no idea what you are talking about with your edit... Erm. America and UK lags behind other first world countries (including Canada and Norway) in terms of social mobility. It's supposed to be the American Dream, not the Canadian Dream. Comparing to third world countries is just setting the bar incredibly low. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all I was responding to someone (probably a marxist) who was suggesting that there is no mobility in America by providing him with data on mobility in America. I'm not trying to set the bar down to 3rd world levels. I don't contend that mobility in America could be better, though comparing country to country can be a bit squishy. There is not "no mobility" in America, just LESS mobility than in other countries with a stronger social democratic tradition. A common argument made in defense of America's lack of social democracy is that it is offset by higher social mobility; however, this is the precise opposite of the truth. I'm pretty sure social mobility has been falling in the US while the size and scope of government has been increasing. I'm not sure the correlation between the two is very strong. For the record, the current debt is not simply from expanding the size and scope of government, or improving social welfare. Most of it is a result of the Bush tax cuts and the two wars, and the bank bail out. Personally I think the idea the social programs can, or is intended to, instanty erase the massive job-loss the US accrued over the past decade is a little naive. The truth is, the 2 to 3 million jobs the Obama Administration did add over three years is pretty impressive, even if it falls short. In regards to social mobility, I can only speak from personal experience that Canada's socialized healthcare prevented my family from dropping out of the middle-class, and we're much bigger contributers to the economy than we would be if didn't have it.
For the record, most of the debt is NOT due to the Bush tax cuts, two wars and the bank bail outs (the bank bail outs were profitable...).
And the unfortunate truth is that this recovery has been very anemic, despite a larger than normal stimulus.
|
On July 24 2012 08:09 coverpunch wrote:
In regards to social mobility, you have to put it a little bit into historical context. The gap between mature and emerging countries has been shrinking dramatically over the last 20 years and I think it's making some emerging markets look better than they are and mature markets look worse than they are.
For instance, Finland's education system is held up as a model today but it's worth pointing out that they had one of the worst systems in the 80s when they reformed their schools. They have a generation that is simply reaping the benefits of an improved education (and Nokia) today, which makes their mobility look very good. But the real test is whether they can maintain their mobility with the next generation that already grows up in a rich country. Probably not. Similarly, you have an entire generation of East Germans who have gotten a boost from re-integration and make the country look much better off than it does. It won't last.
Part of the reason why mobility is so low in the US and UK is because they're already rich, well-educated countries, so the current generation that grows up with so few people knowing real poverty have very little room to move.
That's not to say the US and UK don't have social problems or that the poor have exactly the same opportunities as the rich in this country. Rising inequality is a very serious problem in these countries. I just think you need to put things in more perspective before you declare the US is a feudal state and Canada is an oh-so-wonderfully-equal country.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is wrong. I think you're talking about comparing absolute income between generations, but the methodology used compares relative income within single generations (parental and offspring). That's why the figures quoted talk about percentiles. It doesn't matter what the absolute wealth of a country is, they're only comparing the income position of individuals within their particular generation.
Again, that's an *I think*.
|
On July 24 2012 11:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 10:14 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 10:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 09:04 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 06:42 DoubleReed wrote:On July 24 2012 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 05:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 05:38 HunterX11 wrote:
[quote]
Yes, better instead of gloss over the even greater amount of hard work, pain, and turmoil of those who are not afforded the opportunity to succeed. It's like Christ said: "Accursed are the poor, and never shall they enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as their poverty is their damnation in the eyes of the Lord."
Yeah, 'cuz so many poor are not afforded opportunities in America. Well... yeah...
There is zero income mobility in your world, is that it?
aside from a few "man who" arguments, what is there? edit: often "opportunities" for income mobility are immoral or contrary to class interests in aggregate... Try looking up studies on income mobility. Do the poor have it harder? Sure, but this isn't the grinding permanent poverty of the 3rd world. Here's a nice graphic from the NY Times. Here's a more up to date study.. I have no idea what you are talking about with your edit... Erm. America and UK lags behind other first world countries (including Canada and Norway) in terms of social mobility. It's supposed to be the American Dream, not the Canadian Dream. Comparing to third world countries is just setting the bar incredibly low. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all I was responding to someone (probably a marxist) who was suggesting that there is no mobility in America by providing him with data on mobility in America. I'm not trying to set the bar down to 3rd world levels. I don't contend that mobility in America could be better, though comparing country to country can be a bit squishy. There is not "no mobility" in America, just LESS mobility than in other countries with a stronger social democratic tradition. A common argument made in defense of America's lack of social democracy is that it is offset by higher social mobility; however, this is the precise opposite of the truth. I'm pretty sure social mobility has been falling in the US while the size and scope of government has been increasing. I'm not sure the correlation between the two is very strong. For the record, the current debt is not simply from expanding the size and scope of government, or improving social welfare. Most of it is a result of the Bush tax cuts and the two wars, and the bank bail out. Personally I think the idea the social programs can, or is intended to, instanty erase the massive job-loss the US accrued over the past decade is a little naive. The truth is, the 2 to 3 million jobs the Obama Administration did add over three years is pretty impressive, even if it falls short. In regards to social mobility, I can only speak from personal experience that Canada's socialized healthcare prevented my family from dropping out of the middle-class, and we're much bigger contributers to the economy than we would be if didn't have it. For the record, most of the debt is NOT due to the Bush tax cuts, two wars and the bank bail outs (the bank bail outs were profitable...). And the unfortunate truth is that this recovery has been very anemic, despite a larger than normal stimulus.
Oh yes, I forget that America already paid for the wars and tax cuts ... ohhhhh waaaaaaiiiiitttt a minute ... !!!!!
|
On July 24 2012 11:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 10:14 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 10:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 09:04 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 06:42 DoubleReed wrote:On July 24 2012 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 05:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 05:38 HunterX11 wrote:
[quote]
Yes, better instead of gloss over the even greater amount of hard work, pain, and turmoil of those who are not afforded the opportunity to succeed. It's like Christ said: "Accursed are the poor, and never shall they enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as their poverty is their damnation in the eyes of the Lord."
Yeah, 'cuz so many poor are not afforded opportunities in America. Well... yeah...
There is zero income mobility in your world, is that it?
aside from a few "man who" arguments, what is there? edit: often "opportunities" for income mobility are immoral or contrary to class interests in aggregate... Try looking up studies on income mobility. Do the poor have it harder? Sure, but this isn't the grinding permanent poverty of the 3rd world. Here's a nice graphic from the NY Times. Here's a more up to date study.. I have no idea what you are talking about with your edit... Erm. America and UK lags behind other first world countries (including Canada and Norway) in terms of social mobility. It's supposed to be the American Dream, not the Canadian Dream. Comparing to third world countries is just setting the bar incredibly low. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all I was responding to someone (probably a marxist) who was suggesting that there is no mobility in America by providing him with data on mobility in America. I'm not trying to set the bar down to 3rd world levels. I don't contend that mobility in America could be better, though comparing country to country can be a bit squishy. There is not "no mobility" in America, just LESS mobility than in other countries with a stronger social democratic tradition. A common argument made in defense of America's lack of social democracy is that it is offset by higher social mobility; however, this is the precise opposite of the truth. I'm pretty sure social mobility has been falling in the US while the size and scope of government has been increasing. I'm not sure the correlation between the two is very strong. For the record, the current debt is not simply from expanding the size and scope of government, or improving social welfare. Most of it is a result of the Bush tax cuts and the two wars, and the bank bail out. Personally I think the idea the social programs can, or is intended to, instanty erase the massive job-loss the US accrued over the past decade is a little naive. The truth is, the 2 to 3 million jobs the Obama Administration did add over three years is pretty impressive, even if it falls short. In regards to social mobility, I can only speak from personal experience that Canada's socialized healthcare prevented my family from dropping out of the middle-class, and we're much bigger contributers to the economy than we would be if didn't have it. For the record, most of the debt is NOT due to the Bush tax cuts, two wars and the bank bail outs (the bank bail outs were profitable...). And the unfortunate truth is that this recovery has been very anemic, despite a larger than normal stimulus.
The stimulus should have been larger, not smaller.
|
On July 24 2012 11:44 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 11:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 10:14 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 10:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 09:04 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 06:42 DoubleReed wrote:On July 24 2012 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 05:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, 'cuz so many poor are not afforded opportunities in America.
Well... yeah...
There is zero income mobility in your world, is that it?
aside from a few "man who" arguments, what is there? edit: often "opportunities" for income mobility are immoral or contrary to class interests in aggregate... Try looking up studies on income mobility. Do the poor have it harder? Sure, but this isn't the grinding permanent poverty of the 3rd world. Here's a nice graphic from the NY Times. Here's a more up to date study.. I have no idea what you are talking about with your edit... Erm. America and UK lags behind other first world countries (including Canada and Norway) in terms of social mobility. It's supposed to be the American Dream, not the Canadian Dream. Comparing to third world countries is just setting the bar incredibly low. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all I was responding to someone (probably a marxist) who was suggesting that there is no mobility in America by providing him with data on mobility in America. I'm not trying to set the bar down to 3rd world levels. I don't contend that mobility in America could be better, though comparing country to country can be a bit squishy. There is not "no mobility" in America, just LESS mobility than in other countries with a stronger social democratic tradition. A common argument made in defense of America's lack of social democracy is that it is offset by higher social mobility; however, this is the precise opposite of the truth. I'm pretty sure social mobility has been falling in the US while the size and scope of government has been increasing. I'm not sure the correlation between the two is very strong. For the record, the current debt is not simply from expanding the size and scope of government, or improving social welfare. Most of it is a result of the Bush tax cuts and the two wars, and the bank bail out. Personally I think the idea the social programs can, or is intended to, instanty erase the massive job-loss the US accrued over the past decade is a little naive. The truth is, the 2 to 3 million jobs the Obama Administration did add over three years is pretty impressive, even if it falls short. In regards to social mobility, I can only speak from personal experience that Canada's socialized healthcare prevented my family from dropping out of the middle-class, and we're much bigger contributers to the economy than we would be if didn't have it. For the record, most of the debt is NOT due to the Bush tax cuts, two wars and the bank bail outs (the bank bail outs were profitable...). And the unfortunate truth is that this recovery has been very anemic, despite a larger than normal stimulus. Oh yes, I forget that America already paid for the wars and tax cuts ... ohhhhh waaaaaaiiiiitttt a minute ... !!!!!
What? The wars and tax cuts ADDED to the debt, but they do not represent MOST of the debt as you stated.
Nice English skills.
|
On July 24 2012 11:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 11:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 10:14 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 10:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 09:04 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 06:42 DoubleReed wrote:On July 24 2012 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 05:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, 'cuz so many poor are not afforded opportunities in America.
Well... yeah...
There is zero income mobility in your world, is that it?
aside from a few "man who" arguments, what is there? edit: often "opportunities" for income mobility are immoral or contrary to class interests in aggregate... Try looking up studies on income mobility. Do the poor have it harder? Sure, but this isn't the grinding permanent poverty of the 3rd world. Here's a nice graphic from the NY Times. Here's a more up to date study.. I have no idea what you are talking about with your edit... Erm. America and UK lags behind other first world countries (including Canada and Norway) in terms of social mobility. It's supposed to be the American Dream, not the Canadian Dream. Comparing to third world countries is just setting the bar incredibly low. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all I was responding to someone (probably a marxist) who was suggesting that there is no mobility in America by providing him with data on mobility in America. I'm not trying to set the bar down to 3rd world levels. I don't contend that mobility in America could be better, though comparing country to country can be a bit squishy. There is not "no mobility" in America, just LESS mobility than in other countries with a stronger social democratic tradition. A common argument made in defense of America's lack of social democracy is that it is offset by higher social mobility; however, this is the precise opposite of the truth. I'm pretty sure social mobility has been falling in the US while the size and scope of government has been increasing. I'm not sure the correlation between the two is very strong. For the record, the current debt is not simply from expanding the size and scope of government, or improving social welfare. Most of it is a result of the Bush tax cuts and the two wars, and the bank bail out. Personally I think the idea the social programs can, or is intended to, instanty erase the massive job-loss the US accrued over the past decade is a little naive. The truth is, the 2 to 3 million jobs the Obama Administration did add over three years is pretty impressive, even if it falls short. In regards to social mobility, I can only speak from personal experience that Canada's socialized healthcare prevented my family from dropping out of the middle-class, and we're much bigger contributers to the economy than we would be if didn't have it. For the record, most of the debt is NOT due to the Bush tax cuts, two wars and the bank bail outs (the bank bail outs were profitable...). And the unfortunate truth is that this recovery has been very anemic, despite a larger than normal stimulus. The stimulus should have been larger, not smaller.
I never said it should have been smaller.
|
On July 24 2012 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
(probably a marxist)
haha fuck those guys
|
While Romney's foreign policy is abysmal Obama's economics will run your country into the ground. You guys don't have any good choices. Personally, I would vote for Romney as he is far more competent on the economic front. Obama spends too much money on ineffective social programs and is unwilling to make the tough economic decisions that you guys need. While it is not guaranteed, I feel Romney would be more likely to do what is needed to save your country from a Greece moment in the next 10 years. Either way, good luck, you're in for tough times.
|
On July 24 2012 13:53 Blurry wrote:
While Romney's foreign policy is abysmal Obama's economics will run your country into the ground. You guys don't have any good choices. Personally, I would vote for Romney as he is far more competent on the economic front. Obama spends too much money on ineffective social programs and is unwilling to make the tough economic decisions that you guys need. While it is not guaranteed, I feel Romney would be more likely to do what is needed to save your country from a Greece moment in the next 10 years. Either way, good luck, you're in for tough times.
Really? Obama rolled out the stimulus plan, which faced heavy opposition from both parties. He also chose to bail out the banks and other big industries even though that was a very unpopular decision. If those aren't touch decisions what are? Obama wants to raise taxes, while Romney wants to cut taxes, but only for the rich. Romney, as a Republican, also wants to increase spending in the military while cutting funding for stuff like education. Romney also has a potential connection to the out-sourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Republicans also want to gut the healthcare bill, which is projected, by both liberal and neutral think tanks, to reduce spending in the country by billions, if not trillions.
Pray tell, what and how exactly is Romney more competent or better on the economic front?
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opinion/a-cruel-republican-budget.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-29/house-republican-budget-ryan/53855786/1
if you want to read it yourself: http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ryanwi_050_xml.pdf
|
|
|
On July 24 2012 13:53 Blurry wrote:
While Romney's foreign policy is abysmal Obama's economics will run your country into the ground. You guys don't have any good choices. Personally, I would vote for Romney as he is far more competent on the economic front. Obama spends too much money on ineffective social programs and is unwilling to make the tough economic decisions that you guys need. While it is not guaranteed, I feel Romney would be more likely to do what is needed to save your country from a Greece moment in the next 10 years. Either way, good luck, you're in for tough times.
It has been argued that one of the major factors in the Greek crisis is massive endemic tax evasion, and if you're looking to see tax laws tightened Romney is probably not the ideal candidate to back.
|
On July 24 2012 13:53 Blurry wrote:
Either way, good luck, you're in for tough times.
Fear not, the US has enough influence to pass on its economic troubles to the entire world.
|
On July 24 2012 13:53 Blurry wrote:
While Romney's foreign policy is abysmal Obama's economics will run your country into the ground. You guys don't have any good choices. Personally, I would vote for Romney as he is far more competent on the economic front. Obama spends too much money on ineffective social programs and is unwilling to make the tough economic decisions that you guys need. While it is not guaranteed, I feel Romney would be more likely to do what is needed to save your country from a Greece moment in the next 10 years. Either way, good luck, you're in for tough times.
There isn't a single policy that Romney has proposed that would decrease the deficit.*
His whole economic plan hinges on the premise that the more money wealthy people have, the more they will distribute to the rest of society. You have to have a lot of faith in trickle down theory to believe Romney's will have an impact on the economy, at all.
*I should rephrase that. There is not a single policy he's proposed to decrease the deficit that he'll actually follow through on. As long as there is a Democratic majority in the Senate you are not repealing healthcare. And frankly, Romney is spineless. He is not going to make the necessary cuts to medicaid or social welfare programs to pay for his tax cut.
Romney will say and change positions on anything. He's proven that both the Obama administration and the Congress Republicans can push him around.
|
On July 24 2012 14:06 Jumbled wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 13:53 Blurry wrote:
While Romney's foreign policy is abysmal Obama's economics will run your country into the ground. You guys don't have any good choices. Personally, I would vote for Romney as he is far more competent on the economic front. Obama spends too much money on ineffective social programs and is unwilling to make the tough economic decisions that you guys need. While it is not guaranteed, I feel Romney would be more likely to do what is needed to save your country from a Greece moment in the next 10 years. Either way, good luck, you're in for tough times. It has been argued that one of the major factors in the Greek crisis is massive endemic tax evasion, and if you're looking to see tax laws tightened Romney is probably not the ideal candidate to back.
Especially given that he's probably been dodging taxes himself for years
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
